Fentanyl used for executions?

What do you think of Fentanyl being used for executions? I had it once during a carpal tunnel surgery. I was totally euphoric in spite of what a horrible, claustrophobic experience I was having at the time. Of course later I barfed my brains out...

I am moderately opposed to capital punishment. With all the state funded appeals, the slim chance of a mistake, the media circus, the expense, plus the criticism by the BBC, why bother?

But if we are going to continue with it, this seems like a humane option.

Opiate/benzo combinations have been commonly used for lethal injection executions for a long time, usually they're used to induce sedation and then usually some combination of paralytic and/or barbiturate and/or potassium. There have been executions where the lethal cocktail has mainly been an attempt to OD the person on opiates and benzos, those haven't worked out very well. There have been other high profile botched lethal injections, typically due to incompetence of the person starting/managing the IV access.

I'm not a supporter of capital punishment generally, but if we're going to do it then nitrogen asphyxiation is the obvious superior choice.

The protests of the drug companies that their medications are resulting in people's deaths are a bit silly given the role drug companies have played in promoting the excessive use of opiates, which result in 115 deaths per day in the US.

Jul 12

I heard that the manufacturer of the Benzo, I believe its Phenobarb, used for lethal injection no longer wanted to supply it to be used for executions. I am guessing maybe for that reason they had to start using other drugs.

I don't know. Either way the patient is overdosed on multiple drugs to make sure they die, painlessly which is unfortunate. I am a believer that if they truly killed someone, proven by significant evidence, then why not make them suffer, they made the person they killed suffer. Karma!

I can understand the quantum of the drug companies, especially narcotic companies. Multiple states have sued narcotic manufacturers because of the cost of all the overdoses, and the fact that people have died overdosing on their medications. You cannot be a hypocrite and then turn around and use those medications to purposely kill someone after you just sued them for killing people indirectly.

I heard that the manufacturer of the Benzo, I believe its Phenobarb, used for lethal injection no longer wanted to supply it to be used for executions. I am guessing maybe for that reason they had to start using other drugs.

Either way the patient is overdosed on multiple drugs to make sure they die, painlessly which is unfortunate. I am a believer that if they truly killed someone, proven by significant evidence, then why not make them suffer, they made the person they killed suffer. Karma!

Where do you propose to recruit individuals with psyches sufficiently effed up to be fine with making a living as torturers?

I've drawn blood and broken bones on more than one occasion in self-defense. The way I live with that is that I know it was necessary to protect my own or someone else's life.

Supporting the deliberate killing of another human being, while making sure that pain is inflicted in the process, is in my opinion a stance that can be expected in countries like this one, governed by a repressive, oppressive and backwards regime:

When someone supports the painful killing of human beings as punishment, how are they morally superior to the criminal being punished? The answer is; they're not.

Whoa. I get that to an extent. Yet when you've got a convicted individual who has raped and killed young girls as so many death row inmates have, I don't think that wanting them to experience some pain is necessarily morally equal to what they did. I don't feel as though the perpetrator should experience severe pain at death, however. Once these individuals have reached the point of their execution, though, most of them have been through severe psychological pain and I think most have hit rock bottom and this to me, suffices. I don't think we should torture them at death.

Jul 12

Ha, we dont want it used in botched executions but we have no issue hooking people on drugs for a much longer painful death.

Whoa. I get that to an extent. Yet when you've got a convicted individual who has raped and killed young girls as so many death row inmates have, I don't think that wanting them to experience some pain is necessarily morally equal to what they did. I don't feel as though the perpetrator should experience severe pain at death, however. Once these individuals have reached the point of their execution, though, most of them have been through severe psychological pain and I think most have hit rock bottom and this to me, suffices. I don't think we should torture them at death.

I realize that I passed a pretty harsh judgement there, but it's heartfelt. Let me explain.

I think that it's completely human to feel for a brief moment that a person who has committed a vicious, brutal crime against someone else, deserves to be subjected to the same thing they so happily dished out. I used to work in law enforcement and I've had some really dark thoughts about some of the perpetrators of violent crime that I met. Especially when you meet their victims and are confronted with the pain the offender has inflicted. But having a fleeting thought about it, is where it stops. It never goes any further than that. Hammurabi style justice, should in my opinion, be relegated to the distant past where it belongs.

While I understand the feelings of anger or even rage at the offenders, and that that anger combined with feeling compassion for the victim and their loved ones can lead to thoughts of exacting revenge, I do judge a person who actually wants to make the fantasy of revenge, a reality. Advocating for torture is bloodthirsty to me. It actually is as morally repugnant to me as the bloodthirst that generated the original crime. Once you cross that line, it is my belief that you no longer have a right to sit in judgement of the violent offender.

I find actually wanting to implement the practice of having human beings tortured as punishment for crimes committed, a moral failing. And on a societal level, the ramifications are grotesque. Is the state actually going to pay people who's job it is to kill people and take extra care to make that killing painful? That job would erode the moral core of any decent person, even though I must say that I doubt a decent person would accept that job. Where does it stop?

If a drunk driver kills someone's daughter, should the legal system have drivers who will deliberately run over the drunk driver's offspring, so they really get to experience the same pain they inflicted on someone else? And how does one punish rapists? Should the legal justice system hire people who's job description is serial rapist? CBlover, I know you don't think so. I'm just outlining why I think the idea to punish an offender with the same kind of pain they inflicted on their victim, is morally reprehensible.

I am a believer that if they truly killed someone, proven by significant evidence, then why not make them suffer, they made the person they killed suffer. Karma!

For as long as innocent people get convicted of crimes they didn't commit and for as long as people get executed for crimes they didn't commit, the standard I bolded is completely useless. I would hope that in all the cases where people have been sentenced to death, the legal system considered the crime proven (beyond a reasonable doubt). I have to assume that the decision to execute someone isn't taken lightly, yet history proves that sometimes judges and juries get it wrong.

I realize that I passed a pretty harsh judgement there, but it's heartfelt. Let me explain.

I think that it's completely human to feel for a brief moment that a person who has committed a vicious, brutal crime against someone else, deserves to be subjected to the same thing they so happily dished out. I used to work in law enforcement and I've had some really dark thoughts about some of the perpetrators of violent crime that I met. Especially when you meet their victims and are confronted with the pain the offender has inflicted. But having a fleeting thought about it, is where it stops. It never goes any further than that. Hammurabi style justice, should in my opinion, be relegated to the distant past where it belongs.

While I understand the feelings of anger or even rage at the offenders, and that that anger combined with feeling compassion for the victim and their loved ones can lead to thoughts of exacting revenge, I do judge a person who actually wants to make the fantasy of revenge, a reality. Advocating for torture is bloodthirsty to me. It actually is as morally repugnant to me as the bloodthirst that generated the original crime. Once you cross that line, it is my belief that you no longer have a right to sit in judgement of the violent offender.

I find actually wanting to implement the practice of having human beings tortured as punishment for crimes committed, a moral failing. And on a societal level, the ramifications are grotesque. Is the state actually going to pay people who's job it is to kill people and take extra care to make that killing painful? That job would erode the moral core of any decent person, even though I must say that I doubt a decent person would accept that job. Where does it stop?

If a drunk driver kills someone's daughter, should the legal system have drivers who will deliberately run over the drunk driver's offspring, so they really get to experience the same pain they inflicted on someone else? And how does one punish rapists? Should the legal justice system hire people who's job description is serial rapist? CBlover, I know you don't think so. I'm just outlining why I think the idea to punish an offender with the same kind of pain they inflicted on their victim, is morally reprehensible.

For as long as innocent people get convicted of crimes they didn't commit and for as long as people get executed for crimes they didn't commit, the standard I bolded is completely useless. I would hope that in all the cases where people have been sentenced to death, the legal system considered the crime proven (beyond a reasonable doubt). I have to assume that the decision to execute someone isn't taken lightly, yet history proves that sometimes judges and juries get it wrong.

Definitely a well explained view and no, never should we inflict on the perpetrator what the former perpetrated on another. This is what I think, simply stated, I just feel like we have a system that doesn't help to discourage crime. Man if we didn't treat them so well maybe they'd be less likely to go rape someone's daughter? I'll be honest, I am not against some suffering in some instances. I feel like as you said, though, where do you draw the line. In that respect, it really shouldn't happen period.